06 May 1971
Supreme Court
Download

LATAFAT ALI KHAN AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF U. P.

Bench: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ),MITTER, G.K.,VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.,RAY, A.N.,REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN
Case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 261 of 1968


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LATAFAT ALI KHAN  AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF U. P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1971

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. RAY, A.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1973 AIR 2070            1971 SCC  (2) 355  CITATOR INFO :  D          1978 SC1296  (19,46,47)  RF         1992 SC1033  (60)

ACT: U.P.  Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (U.P. 1  of 1961), s. 6(xvii) and r. 4(4) of the Rules made  thereunder- If protected by Arts. 31A and 31B.

HEADNOTE: Section  6(xvii) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling  on  Land Holdings  Act,  1960,  and  rule  4(4)  of  the  rules  made thereunder  are  protected  by  Arts. 31A  and  31B  of  the Constitution. [720C-D] (a)They  are part of a scheme of land reform in  U.P.  and would  therefore  be protected from attack under  Art.  31A. [720D] (b)The rule does not go beyond the powers conferred by the section read with s. 44 of the Act, and the Act is  included to  the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution.  If a  statutory rule is within the power conferred by a section of a statute protected by Art. 31B the rule cannot further be scrutinised under Arts. 14, 19 and 31. [720C]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 261 of 1968. Petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  for the enforcement of fundamental rights. S.   C. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the petitioner. S.   C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana, for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C. J.--This petition under Art. 32 has been filed  by the three appellants in Civil Appeals No. 2018-2020 of 1968, in which we have just delivered judgment.  In this  petition the  vires  of s. 6, cl. (xvii), of the U.P.  Imposition  of Ceiling  on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (U.  P. Act 1 of  1961)- hereinafter  referred to as the Act-and rule 4(4) of the  U. P.  Imposition  of Ceilings and Land Holdings  Rules,  1961, have  been  challenged.  It is urged that  these  provisions

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

violate  Art.  14,  19(1)(f)  and  (g)  and  31(1)  of   the Constitution.   The learned counsel for the State  contended that  the impugned provisions are protected by Art.  31B  of the Constitution, as the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is included in the Ninth Schedule as  item  58.  The learned counsel for the  petitioners,  in reply,  urged (1) that the impugned provisions have  nothing to  do with land reform, and (2) that rules made  under  the Act do not enjoy the protection of Art. 318.  It is admitted that the land                             720 in  dispute is a ’holding’ within S. 3(d) of the  Act.   The definition reads :               "Holding" means the land or lands held by  a               person  as a bhumidhar, sirdar, asami of  Gaon               Samaj or ant asami mentioned in Section 11  of               the  Uttar  Pradesh, Zamindari  Abolition  and               Land  Reforms Act, 1950, or as a tenant  under               the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, other than a  sub-               tenant,  or  as a Government lessee, or  as  a               sublessee  of a Government lessee,  where  the               period  of the sub-lease is co-extensive  with               the period of the lease." It seems to us that if a statutory rule is within the powers conferred  by a section of a statute protected by Art.  31B, it  is  difficult  to  say that the  rule  must  further  be scrutinised under-Arts. 14, 19, etc.  Rule 4(4) seems to  us to  be a rule which does not go beyond the powers  conferred under s. 6(xvii), read with S. 44 of the Act.  At any  rate, S. 6(xvii) and rule 4(4) are part of a scheme of land reform in U.P. and would be protected from attack under Art. 31A of the Constitution. In  the  result we hold that s. 6(xvii) and  rule  4(4)  are valid The petition accordingly fails.  In the  circumstances there will be no order as to costs. V. P. S.                      Petition dismissed.. 721